I never got too much into the Phoenix Lights situation at the time it was happening, My jaw dropped like most people's, and I knew there would be the inevitable battle between the two opposing forces, but I left it at that.

Lately, having taken up battling the debunkers, a couple of niggling questions are bothering me. It seems that there are two distinct incidents that night. The main one, PL, completely overshadows that 1st one that started at Henderson, Nevada, about 243 mile away and was two to two and a half hours earlier. I have been researching all over and below is a timeline of events I have put together that brings up some bothersome questions. I need your help filling in the blanks, adding to or correcting anything I am writing so that I can be as accurate and objective as possible. Thanks.

Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 7:30 and 10:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles,

1. First report came from Henderson, Nevada at 7:30 and Phoenix Lights ended approx. 10;302. 3 hr. time span (7:30pm – 10:30pm)3. 300 miles distance from Henderson, Nevada to Barry Goldwater firing range.4. astronomer sighting in Phoenix approx. 250 miles away from Henderson at 10:00pm5. The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately *5 minutes while suspended from a parachute6. Flares at Henderson would have to travel hundreds and thousands of mph to get to Phoenix in 5 mins. So obviously, the first event couldn’t be flares unless the N. Guard were dropping them intermittently from Henderson to Phoenix.

1. Did the N. Guard start at Henderson and drop flares intermittently over the 300 mile stretch?2. If, so, did they announce it like they announced the Phoenix?If not, what explanation has been given for the first stretch of sightings that traveled approx. 250 miles and took 2 to 2 and a half hrs.?

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)

You are correct. There are 2 events that night. The funny part is that people often point out that the governor of Arizona is seen in a video saying this was a real UFO event. What is funny is that the video shows event 2 while the governor describes event 1. This is how screwed up that info is. The first lights were seen by an amateur astronomer that saw that they were airplanes. Not only were the lights identified, but they were identified by someone with good optical equipment.

Here's the problem I am struggling with. The astronomer saw the airplanes in Phoenix. The first sightings started in Henderson, Nevada, which is 250 away. The astronomer could not be describing the first 250 miles worth of sightings because he physically wasn't there. Also, the flares used had a 5 minute burn time. They would have had to have been traveling thousands of miles an hour to make it from Henderson to Phoenix to the other side of the range.

Also, all I can find about the astronomer's sightings is that he saw "planes". What kind? How many? How big, how small? Is it common practice for the military to drop flares over populated areas in spite of the potential danger involved? If they routinely do drop flares over the city, why would this night have been different that any other night with a similar flare training exercise?

It seems to me that the first event got lumped in with the Phoenix Lights mass sighting and got completely overlooked. The people from Henderson on down to Phoenix saw something, that's a fact. What it was is still wide open to debate. We also know it couldn't be 5-minute burn-time flares. Are there any explanations given for the first 250 mile stretch of sightings that occurred at least 2, if not 2 to 2 1/2 hrs. beforehand. This is driving me nuts. Debunkers give the same canned spiel they always do and if you press through holes in their Official Story they do the knee-jerk ad hominem crap.

I am really frustrated because I know from experience that if a UFO person tried to get away with an affirmative UFO story using the same body of explanations as the debunkers do, the debunkers would be blowing an O-ring. So what's up? What gives? Please help me out.

well i told you you wouldnt like the explanationmy problem with this kind of topic and ufo's in generalis that it always end up in the same placewe are talking about other people's experiences and perception of what happenedand discussing what they saw, which is pointlessnothing comes out of it, since there's no way of seeing the "evidence" is a dead end.

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)

ciscop wrote:well i told you you wouldnt like the explanationmy problem with this kind of topic and ufo's in generalis that it always end up in the same placewe are talking about other people's experiences and perception of what happenedand discussing what they saw, which is pointlessnothing comes out of it, since there's no way of seeing the "evidence" is a dead end.

I agree: if you have no empirical evidence to analyze, it's all anecdotal, and that's a problem for me as well.

ciscop wrote:well i told you you wouldnt like the explanationmy problem with this kind of topic and ufo's in generalis that it always end up in the same placewe are talking about other people's experiences and perception of what happenedand discussing what they saw, which is pointlessnothing comes out of it, since there's no way of seeing the "evidence" is a dead end.

I agree: if you have no empirical evidence to analyze, it's all anecdotal, and that's a problem for me as well.

I agree with you on the anecdotal, however, to write it off entirely is not smart. You have many skilled, experienced and well trained pilots who have reported sightings that are also picked up on radar. Those I find particularly compelling.

Here's what a debunker would do every time. If you had 100 people witness an event and 99 said it was a UFO and 1 person said it was a plane, the debunker would immediately go with the 1 and try to pump up the volume on why he was solid and then try to downplay and diminish and minimize the 99 as not being reliable. When you get a number of reports from different people, independent of each other, of different stripes, the one thing you know for sure is that they saw something. What they saw, you don't know for sure. In the first sighting, Henderson, Nevada, I have been unable to find anything solid. There is a weak explanation given that it was probably a small group of Canadian Tudors (sp) that people saw and that the Canadian pilots were unaware of the ruckus they caused. I call bullshit on that for the simple reason that was broadcast world wide and at some point the pilots would put two and two together and come forth. No one has at this point in time. So I am waiting for another debunker plausible.

The astronomer could not be describing the first 250 miles worth of sightings because he physically wasn't there. Also, the flares used had a 5 minute burn time.

The amateur astronomer only saw the planes from his vantage point. He saw the first set of lights. The first set of lights were planes. Why do you say the flares had a 5 minute burn time. There were no flares associated with the first sighting of the night. You are mixing 2 different events that happened hours apart. Before continueing with your questions you need to understand what happened when and where. No flares were dropped over civilian areas. You continue to get the events of that night completely mixed up.

What it was is still wide open to debate.

No debate. A telescope was used to verify that the objects in event one were planes in formation.

I say the events are described poorly since it misrepresents the publication of the amateur astronomer's report. Notice that the author does not have a citation for the claim of:

Even though former Phoenix Councilwomen and Vice Mayor, Frances Emma Barwood, received over 700 reports of mile wide V or boomerang shaped craft and orbs, Mitch Stanley's report was the only one publicized in the Arizona print media.

We know that statement is wrong since the governor's statement was published as were many other statements that these lights were part of an enormous spacecraft.

the Republic has covered the sighting on its front page under the headline "UFO Mania."

Barwood was a big supporter of the UFO claim.

Most people including the governor stated that the second sighting that night was flares. One of the reasons for all of the confusion is that videos put out by news services show the second sighting while dubbing in the comments from the Arizona governor stating that this was a UFO.

Last edited by Nostradamus on 04 Oct 2009, 11:48, edited 1 time in total.

One of the witnesses who claimed that he clearly and distinctly saw a solid shape move through the sky also reported that at the instant this huge low flying UFO passed in front of the moon it immediately turned invisible, but it's passing in front of the moon was visible as a shimmering effect seen of the moon.

So here is a witness that saw an alien craft that knew to turn invisible when he was viewing it! What about turning invisible when all of the other witnesses watch it?

The 'shimmering' the witness saw was actually the appearance of contrails or turbulence across the face of the moon.

Wasn't sure if the radar comment referred to this event or something else, but in the Phoenix lights events:

He confirms that the object or objects did not register on radar as they passed overhead, a fact seconded by Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base.

But both admitted that that doesn't rule out the possibility of a group of airplanes. Cotton says that the radar used by air traffic controllers reads signals emitted by transponders in the airplanes themselves.

Normally, in a formation of seven planes, only the lead plane would turn on its transponder so air traffic controllers could track it. If the lead plane's transponder was turned off, however, the seven planes could have passed by without detection.

The wiki article makes some mention of the planes as possibly being a Canadian group, but:

Among the rumors making the rounds in commercial aviation: that the group was the Canadian Snowbirds, a group of T-37s which flies at air shows. A spokesman for the Snowbirds says their season does not begin until April, however, and that the troupe was not in Arizona in March.